EU pushes ahead despite failing to prove the problem

Europe has adopted tighter rules for textile shipments and is advancing international discussions on further controls. Yet its own sources still cannot establish how much second-hand clothing is exported as unusable waste.

As Reuse News reported in Shouldn’t policymakers check the facts before making policy? the European Commission declined to answer further questions about the evidence underpinning its approach to textile waste exports. The uncertainty remains, but the regulatory process is moving ahead.

The European Union has already legislated to change how collected textiles are classified, sorted and shipped. From May 2027, new restrictions will also apply to exports of non-hazardous waste to countries outside the OECD. Alongside these decisions, Europe has helped bring used textiles and textile waste onto the Basel Convention’s agenda.

But the evidence behind the export debate remains incomplete. The European Environment Agency acknowledges that there is little information on actual reuse rates in importing countries or the proportion of exported textiles that becomes waste. A report prepared for the Basel negotiations likewise finds that the scale and nature of textile waste flows remain inconclusive.

The legislation is moving towards implementation while those basic questions remain unresolved.

The rules are already adopted

The revised Waste Framework Directive entered into force in October 2025. Member states must transpose it into national law by 17 June 2027 and establish textile producer responsibility schemes within 30 months of its entry into force. Producers will finance collection and the subsequent management of textiles, including preparation for reuse and recycling.

The directive also changes the legal starting point for separately collected textiles: they are generally to be considered waste upon collection, with an exception for products directly assessed by professionals as fit for reuse. Shipments presented as reusable goods will require evidence of sorting or professional assessment, including records relating to the bales in a consignment.

The Commission describes the purpose as preventing waste from being falsely labelled and exported as reusable clothing. The rules therefore address the boundary between a second-hand product and a waste shipment—a distinction with direct consequences for the trade.

The Waste Shipment Regulation, adopted in 2024, adds another layer. From 21 May 2027, exports of green-listed, non-hazardous waste to non-OECD countries will generally be prohibited unless the destination country meets the conditions for an exemption. Waste exporters will also face requirements for independent audits of receiving facilities.

These restrictions concern waste, rather than all second-hand clothing. That makes the classification of collected textiles central to determining which shipments can proceed and under what conditions.

Europe is also pursuing international controls

The push extends beyond EU borders.

In March 2024, Denmark, France and Sweden called for a common EU proposal to bring textile waste under the Basel Convention’s control mechanisms. Their proposal envisaged prior informed consent: official authorisation before covered waste shipments could proceed. The three governments explicitly presented international controls as a way to align global regulation with Europe’s developing rules.

An EU proposal at Basel’s 2025 conference sought a process for examining options. The conference subsequently placed used textiles and textile waste on its work programme, including the distinction between them.

The EU also financed the preparation of the options report considered by the convention’s working group in Geneva in June 2026. That report compiles submissions from governments and observers; it is not an independent measurement of waste in exported consignments.

In Geneva, the EU argued that textiles represented an emerging challenge the convention should address. Other countries urged caution. China called for technical studies before additional measures, while Kenya considered prior informed consent and changes to the convention’s annexes premature.

The meeting adopted no new textile-specific consent requirement. Instead, governments and observers were invited to submit further comments by 30 November 2026, for consideration at COP-18 in 2027. International controls remain under discussion.

Export volumes have become evidence of a waste problem

One document illustrates how the distinction between used clothing and waste can disappear in the policy debate.

The March 2024 note from Denmark, France and Sweden referred to a threefold increase in “textile waste” exports and cited 1.7 million tonnes exported in 2019. The EEA briefing reporting those figures described used textiles and explicitly acknowledged uncertainty about their quality and subsequent fate.

The difference matters. An increase in second-hand trade does not establish an equivalent increase in unusable waste being shipped abroad.

The EEA identifies limited and largely anecdotal evidence about what happens to exported textiles. The Basel options report records fragmented or missing statistics and stresses the importance of distinguishing waste associated with imports from domestic waste streams.

Clothes arriving unfit for use, clothes discarded after a second life and waste generated by domestic consumption represent different problems. Their presence in the same disposal system does not establish how much waste was imported.

The EU’s adopted measures introduce classification, sorting and documentation requirements intended to prevent waste from passing as reusable goods. The international process could lead to further controls. But the proportion of second-hand exports that is already unusable when shipped—the central measurement needed to establish the scale of that export problem—remains unresolved.